PLANNING IN VANCOUVER'S WEST END

Until to 1972 the West End had what was in effect an automatic self-regulating bylaw.  That is much of the area was zoned to encourage apartment towers that were evenly spaced from one another.  A built in density bonus ensured that the more open space provided on a site, the taller the building could be.  The system was fair in that anyone who bought into the area knew in advance, what could be built and how the owners’ lands could be affected.  The design of buildings was a product of a mathematical formula.  The bylaw was a girdle into which the building was slipped.

Partially in response to the criticism that buildings were repetitive and uninteresting, the City in 1972 introduced discretionary zoning.  This system allowed   planners to adjust the siting, height and designs of buildings.  The discretion was not absolute.  The bylaw has guidelines that must be applied.

Under the Local Government Act, the system allows variations on siting, but the use or density in an official community plan may not be touched.  Under both systems, however, spot zonings are allowed.

The Vancouver Charter does not generally allow  an owner to sue for damages to his land resulting from a downzoning.  Of course when property is up-zoned or down-zoned, assuming the values move in parallel, so do the taxes.

At common law the sale of zoning by Cities was forbidden.   The legislature, however, can overrule common law.  

Community Amenity Contributions

City governments found a way around this inconvenience.  The song and dance would go like this:  


The Developer would ask to rezone the land to a higher density.  The City would wistfully say, “We would love to but we need three new fire trucks, and many defibrillators.”

The developer would say, “No problem we will give you three fire trucks and all the defibrillators you like.”  

Eyes cast Demurely to the floor, the City Officials would sigh, “Kind sirs, -  that would be the sale of zoning.  We have our virtue to protect.  If, however, you offer us these things, and assure us that your hearts and motives are pure, we can do this.  We will enact the zoning bylaw.  One more thing *** don’t believe for a second that it has anything to do with your gift.  It is your sincerely expressed affection that has seduced  us.”

Their hearts, as pure as the driven slush, the deal would complete.

That system worked fine in other municipalities.Eventually it was expressly authorized by Local Government Act and the Vancouver Charter in the form of Community Amenity Contributions.  Now City Council can leave love out of the zoning equation and focus on the public interest.

When construction takes place on land that is already zoned for a set of land uses and at a specific density,  the City can charge Development Cost Levies.  The charges are fixed in advance by bylaw and then applied to individual developments according to a formula. That is fine.

Development Cost Levies

These are described in in Vancouver’s Web site as:

Development Cost Levies (DCLs) collected from development help pay for facilities made necessary by growth. Facilities eligible for DCL funding include: parks, child care facilities, replacement housing (social/non-profit housing), and engineering infrastructure. The DCL by-laws establish the boundaries, set the rates, and describe how to calculate and pay the levy.  Levies collected within each DCL district must be spent within the area boundary (except replacement housing projects which can be located outside). This Bulletin provides general information about DCLs:

Development Cost Levies v Community Amenity Contributions

A DCL (called DCC under the Local Government Act) is imposed by bylaw on all developments within the area covered by it.  Council must decide that the imposition is fair and equitable.  


Community Amenity Charges by contrast are a completely ad hoc thing sometimes covering the same matters as DCCs. 

The City Web Site defines them as follows:

Community Amenity Contributions (CACs) are in-kind or cash contributions provided by developers when City Council grants additional development rights through rezonings.

How does this differ from the sale of zoning?  Vancouver is allowed to do what it is doing. The question is one rarely asked in politics: Is it right?  


It could easily, over the past two years, have amended its Development Cost Levy bylaw and the Community Plan if  it felt that  the it  was not getting enough from developers. It  could have charged them higher DCC's.

Now you might ask, if this is so bad why don’t the developers complain?  The answer is simply that they build it into the cost of doing business.  Secondly, they may be getting a pretty good deal in terms of a density bonus.

And why should the residents care?  Aren’t they getting free amenities?

The reason they care is that really they are paying for it.  By rezoning the land, the impacts are unequally distributed.  People, for example whose views are affected by the extra bulk of the building lose value in their own homes.  If anyone should be getting paid cash for the gain of amenities, it is the ones adversely affected – not City Hall. 

What exactly are they paying for? What is the amenity?  Part of it is some units of low end rental housing.  But how is that their amenity?  It is  really a form of tax on low to middle income people who live in older multiple family housing stock.  Why should they bear that burden?

The West End Residents have asked Vancouver City Council to produce a new community plan, if they are intent on change. They also want them to stop departing from the existing plan by spot re-zonings until the new one is completed.  In a scene reminiscent of  the Old Testament (Exodus) the West Enders are saying to Council, Let our people plan.  


Council, Pharaoh like, has hardened its heart and indicated that they can plan all they want but the re-zonings will continue.

Given Council’s own priorities, this seems strange.  The basic Community Plan was prepared in 1972 by West End Residents, with help from the Social Planning Department. It accepted high densities. It also resulted in street closures and parks that reduced traffic and made it a safe place to walk and  bike. 


It produced Vancouver’s first urban core bike network. The plan and the process yielded exceptional results.  Vancouver became one of the very few Cities with a livable high density core under a plan that was neighborhood based.

Vancouver Council should go back to the future and give planning a chance. 

THE OBJECT OF LIFE

 “The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape being consigned to the ranks of the insane" -- Marcus Aurelius

Every year I try to remember the first two weeks of March. I  missed it this year but will try to make up for it now.

On  Monday in March 3, 2008, Vancouver used its full legal might to prosecute a student who threw a single potato chip at a friend. A bylaw enforcement officer saw it happen near the court house and the lad was charged with littering. The Vancouver Law Department prosecuted and the young man plead guilty. The JP fined him ten dollars payable over 100 years.

Co-incidentally, this happened on or about the 150^th anniversary of the invention of the Potato chip. George Crum, employed as a chef at an elegant resort in New York, decided to rile an annoying guest by producing fries that were too thin and crisp to skewer with a fork. The rest is history.

 March 10 was also the day that New York Governor Elliott Spitzer was forced out of office. FBI wiretaps revealed he had been purchasing the services of a high priced hooker.

Meanwhile, back in Vancouver, a former City Manager who  had become our most accomplished lobbyist, plead guilty to engaging in his employment without completing a required form. (He did not know he had to.) More, to be pitied then censured, he was required by the Court to write an essay about lobbying,

It was in New York, however, that the lobbying profession received its come-uppance. On Wednesday, in the home state of the potato chip, a reporter bluntly asked Spitzer’s successor, Governor Patterson if he ever patronized a prostitute.

 "Only the lobbyists," he replied.

Then on Thursday it turned out that while Gov Spitzer had been brought to his knees, first by the hooker and then by the FBI, the hooker became an overnight sensation to more than the Governor. She was to be featured in a juried publication, Hustler Magazine!  Her songs were the number one down load on the Internet.

Today, the Governor is a frequent guest on TV talk shows. 

For some people things just work out.

ON THE BOARDWALK IN ATLANTIC CITY

Have you watched "Boardwalk Empire" starring Steve Buscemi, on HBO?  It chronicles the history of Atlantic City from the days of prohibition and is the story of its political boss, Nucky (Enoch) Johnson. Johnson (named Thompson on the TV series) was the head of the Atlantic County Republican Executive Committee. He considered it beneath his dignity, as a true political boss, to ever run for office. His reign ended  in about 1941 when he went to jail.

">

Atlantic City was my home town. I graduated from its high school in 1956.  In 1964 after college, law school and military service I moved to Vancouver to attend my best friend's wedding and stayed.

When I learned a few years  ago that many of Vancouver’s departments had been dispersed outside City Hall to various locations throughout the city, I thought of my home town.

Atlantic City  had a commission form of government. Each of the five department heads was an at large, elected commissioner. They would not have thought of doing anything without checking first with Nucky. 


No one had to communicate with anyone else. This left the planners free to plan more streets. It was said that this was part of their social planning efforts to reduce the percentage of crime on any one street.

Others said that the contractors were paying off the Commissioners or Nucky or someone.

Whatever the reason, lots of streets and road works were being built which in the depression was a good thing. But if the engineers had to make traffic direction signs without knowing from the planners where the streets were,  it was predictable that signs would point to streets that did not yet exist.

It is important for city staff to operate out of one city hall. If they know where the other departments are located and can talk to each other over coffee they hear about things like where the streets are going to be.  It makes for better decisions.

The  NPA caused the diaspora in the first place. Council, or the manager or whoever is in charge  today should  invite them back to the partially vacant city hall.

There are other contrasts and parallels.

Vancouver's current, likable mayor, Gregor Robertson, used to be in the business of selling  juice made of un-distilled herbs and berries. Nucky, supplied the post distillery product during prohibition. His sometime associate was Al Capone.

Nucky was a wildly popular boss endowed with all of the attributes of a great politician.  He was charming, likable, a good speaker and did favors for everyone. If he had to run for office I am sure he would have won no matter how many votes he got. He did some time  but it was only for tax evasion.

When it came to development, he did not need to consult with neighbours. Responsibility for consultation was divided between the elected commissioners who consulted and Nucky who made the decisions. If the decision was too unpopular Nucky could blame the commissioners and reverse it. Actually, the un-elected boss was probably more in touch with the Republican voters then any elected commissioner. This was a lot like the system under Napoleon where they had a bicameral legislature. One house could debate but not vote and the other could vote but not debate. Government must appear democratic above all else.

The classic Monopoly board is based on the street system of Atlantic City. The inventor lived near us in Marvin Gardens. Park Place was the most expensive property on the  board and was Atlantic City's equivalent to Vancouver's Shaughnessy area. Its density increased with many suites being added. Gradually it became a run down boarding house area.

Another thing about the streets in Atlantic City is that they had an astounding number of traffic lights per intersection.  On some dead ends, there would be three or four traffic lights.  That is because the traffic light dealers were amazingly proficient at selling the city more traffic lights than they had streets. 

Some said that this was another example of corruption. That is a pretty cynical view. I could see why this might have been accidental. It could happen for example if the planners who planned the streets did not tell the engineers who bought the lights how many streets there were. They had to predict the number of streets like the weather.

Here is another comparison. Vancouver has superb hospitals!

Atlantic City had a lousy hospital.   My father said in the 40's that if only the schools and hospitals could learn to be as corrupt as the Atlantic City engineers, planners and commissioners, maybe they could have installed a few extra doctors and teachers instead of traffic lights. 

Nucky Johnson  was a true civic booster. Vancouver's goal today is to be the Greenest City in the World. Nucky dreamed that his Boardwalk Empire would be known as The World's Playground." The slogan was deeply embedded in our psyche.  That is not the only place it was embedded. They  used to sell underwear on the Boardwalk with that slogan emblazoned across the front. 


The slogan on underwear is a nice idea for Vancouver. Our old nuclear free zone slogan would work but one based on Greenest  would require further thought.

SALE OF ZONING

Should Cities be able to sell zoning?  I am not speaking of fees charged by Cities to pay for the cost of the application or development cost charges paid for the burdens created by developments.  I refer to a deal whereby politicians on Council decide to change zoning in consideration of a payment to City Hall either that they have demanded from a land owner,  or that has been voluntarily paid to them by one owner for the right to violate the existing zoning bylaw.

The Courts have held that unless the Provincial Government expressly empowers them to do so Cities cannot sell zoning. 

The reason gets down to simple morality.  Zoning bylaws are the rules by which a community agrees to live. They are a neighborhood pact.  Zoning seeks to minimize the adverse impacts of various land uses on each other.  The zoning paradigm may shift from time to time.  The public may decide that environmental rather than aesthetic considerations are paramount.  Whatever the rules,  people are to be treated equally within a zone. 

Payment for zoning is morally corrupt not because politicians are pocketing any money,  but because it treats people who are in the same zone unequally based on their ability to buy their way out.  It places burdens on those who relied on the zoning in exchange for money paid to the City. 

The City of Vancouver is hooked on selling zoning.  It does it all the time.  As a  condition of the rezoning, it demands cash or amenity contributions.  The cash  can be used off site.  It is explained on Vancouver’s Web page:     http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/financinggrowth/cacs.htm

It is allowed under the Vancouver Charter. It is also perverse.

Consider the West End for example.  The City spot zones land first.  That is it exempts the developer from the rules upon which the other existing renters or condo purchasers in the area have relied.  The City knows that there will be an increase in the value of the land if the density increases or if special uses are allowed.  Therefore, it keeps for itself  the value of most of the lift as an amenity contribution.  The Developer keeps the rest.

The City does the accounting and it is not easy to find where the money really goes.  Let’s  assume for now  that it puts all of the money in a new West End theatre.  The people who are really paying for it are the ones who are adversely affected by the change of zoning. They are the ones whose values drop as a result of their blocked views or increased traffic or shortage of parking spaces.

Low density areas face exactly the same problem.  Most neighborhood  plans and zoning call for development on arterials.  That is where it should be for planning reasons.  The Catch 22 is that if the arterials are already zoned for commercial or high density use the City cannot extract more money for the charges.  

It is in the interest of developers and the city to accumulate land in the low density areas.  (Who pays retail when you can buy wholesale?) They can do this by the familiar method of block busting.  They  acquire options at an option price that makes the owner want to leave the neighborhood.  Instead of paying retail for the already zoned higher density land, they pay a little over the lower single family value.  Then, when the land is accumulated, they can ask for a spot zoning of increased density.  The City gets most of the lift in value and the developer gets the rest. 

As to the neighbours, the familiar maxim applies:  If you want fairness go to a whorehouse, if you want to get fucked go to City Hall.

So where does this leave us?  Residents of the West End can be expected to go to City Hall and beg them to respect the existing Official Community Plan and Zoning bylaw.  Isn’t that glorious!   If past is prologue, the land will be rezoned no matter what they say.

A modest proposal that respects Equality Rights

So what to do?    Residents could of course occupy City Hall. All the world hates a whiner though so I have a more practical solution that doesn’t involve trespass.  The West End Enders should hold a series of bake sales, concerts and other fund raising events.  They should raise enough money to at least get an auction going with the developers to buy off the Council.  They would figure out how much the lift in value for the spot zoning will be, determine how much of that will go to the City,  and then offer the City money to simply leave them alone. The City would get paid either way.  Now, the City might say that they already get higher taxes from the rezoning,  so they should get even more money from the residents.  The beauty part is that under my proposal everything goes.

There are still moral objections to this approach but, happily, neither City Hall nor the developers are in any position to raise them.

DENSITY ACCORDING TO PARMENEDES

The Simon Fraser Centre for Dialogue, as part of its Carbon Talks project, has produced a document called “Density in a City of Neighborhoods”. The Primary author is former NPA City Councilor, Gordon Price.

Density is made possible because of cycling. Price sees cycling as a means of displacing carbon producing cars. Everyone can bike 10 km from their homes. If they live in a dense urban area they don't really need to go much further. Plumbing tools or cellos strapped to the back fender, Joe the Plumber or Yo Yo Ma can all pedal to work.


Much of the paper seems to be an attempt to provide  the ontological proof that the perfect dense city exists. We must all get with the program.

   
If you would rather hear about Parmenedes click above

Price follows in the footsteps of the Philosopher, Parmenedes, who invented  reality. If  Parmenedes had written the paper it would have gone like this: (A) One can imagine the perfectly dense City. (B) Now try to imagine that it doesn't exist. (C) But, if it does not exist then it wouldn't be perfect. Right? (D) Therefore, the perfect, high density city, Vancouver,  exists. That is the ontological argument.  If Vancouver is not quite perfectly dense it is because residents don't fully understand that what is good for the development industry is good for them and the rest of the country.   Price doesn't put it exactly this way but its close enough.


 If Parmenedes discovered Reality, Price transcends it. He says, at one point  “Beyond the downtown pensinsula, however new forms of density were rarely greeted with enthusiasm.”  and “Rarely in the past does a stable neighborhood embrace a fundamental change in its character.  In the past it was imposed, as happened in the 1950's.” (underlining added)


We have to embrace density and fundamental change if we are to live up to Gordon's expectations.


No individual or neighborhood is likely to embrace a fundamental change in their character, unless they are serving time. In that case the change is insincere. Price is really saying that stable neighborhoods should have no choice but to embrace fundamental  change by densification. That's how it was done four score and seven years ago. As long as it is prescribed by those who know what is best that is what must happen. Implicitly to deny density is to deny climate change which in turn results in the loss of species including barn owls and frogs and causes the retreat of glaciers all of which leads to disappointment. 

The good news is that we have been embracing change for our entire history. We do not have much of a choice.


In stable neighborhoods where there has been no proper planning process, forced change will lead to trouble. The rezoning of the Marathon lands by the CPR at 25^th and Arbutus Street brought 1200 people to a public hearing.   Mayor Tom Campbell opened the hearing,  scanned the crowd and said cheerfully, “It’s a sell out!” 

Pediatric Surgeon David Hardwick, an accomplished heckler, from the back of the auditorium shouted, “Tom, it was a sell out before the hearing.”  That rezoning went ahead but the NPA paid a price. It was turfed in the next election. There was a feeling that Council was lint in the pockets of developers.  

Substantial increases in density are likely to be accepted under two circumstances. The first is where the increase is pursuant to a plan that the public prepared in their own neighborhood with the assistance of a City Planner.  Almost all neighborhoods that participated in City Plan, an initiative of the Vancouver's Planning Department in the 90's accepted increased density. The Dunbar Plan was quite specific and called for it to be on arterials and assume certain forms. The West End willingly accepted increases in density in the 70s under a local area planning process that took two years to complete. That plan also added parks to intersections and generally reduced traffic.


Other neighborhoods like Fairview Slopes accepted more housing because they had been in transition for a while. They had been bought up by speculators and absentee landlords.  I remember in the 70s when Fairview slopes was  rezoned upwards  to facilitate  as it turned out, the construction of  leaky condos.   I was in the Social Planning department and attended the public hearing. We expected opposition. Someone stood up in  the audience and said to council; "We all know why we are here--- lets get on with it." There was virtually no opposition.  It was rezoned. Upwards.


Price says “by mid-decade as part of a strategy called Eco Density reinforcing the environmental connections with the compact city- Vancouver aimed for density that was invisible, hidden or gentle, while still meeting the challenge of growth and environment. Hence the legalization of secondary suites across the city and the introduction of lane houses, encouragement of housing along arterials and frequent transit routes.”

New speak, the term introduced by George Orwell in his novel,  1984, refers to the practice of giving words new but opposite meanings.    War is Peace, Love is Hate etc. Terms like “hidden” or “gentle” density are  new speak. The intention is to associate density with something with which it is unrelated. Newspeak  destroys language.  Laneway houses reduce the amount of landscaping and open space by 50%.    "Gentle Density"  is plan-ese for doubling the site coverage of an area. There is nothing gentle about it. The developer of an apartment building will have to supply certain amenities and pay development cost charges. The developer of a laneway house will not. 


Gentle-fication is happening to much of the City. Owners are being taxed out of their houses. Housing stock is replaced with mega houses.  There are many investor owned vacant houses. Eventually they will become apartments. Newly renovated houses are being demolished.  Gordon Price is one of the drum majors.

THE CLOISTER FLOCK

There is an ancient expression monks in certain religious orders use  to describe the situation where multiple things go wrong.  The origin dates back to medieval times when  flocks of geese invaded  the  peaceful cloisters of the monasteries. The incessant honking disturbed vespers.  Gregorian Chants were disrupted. 

The monks called the birds a Cloister Flock.  


Today it is used to describe a chaotic situation or event where an excessive number of people are trying to accomplish a task in a complex environment.

Incidentally, in the South of France the sound of the Geese flustering the monks is called a “Fluster Cluck.”

The public gets Cloister Flocked all the time by local governments. Over the next couple of days I intend to warn you of  some of them. Let us begin with a hypothetical.

Suppose you are carefully riding your bike down a separated bike lane in Vancouver. You are wearing your helmit and are generally slathered in protective gear and moisturizers. You arrive at an intersection and come to a complete stop. Then as you proceed to pedal across the street you are hit by a car driven by a City bicycle planner travelling in the course of his employment .  Happily you are not badly hurt. You thank him for the City’s  various good works and you pedal off.

Your friend who is 10 minutes behind you arrives at the same intersection and he too is hit by a car. This car is driven by a car dealer. He hops out of his car. Unlike the City employee he is not a caring person.  He hands you his card.  He says insensitive, hurtful things about you, your bike and the environment and drives off.

You and your friend compare notes and find it curious that you had identical accidents and injuries and are grateful that you were not badly hurt.  Still you are both limping.

Three months go by and you both notice that your knees are starting to seize up.  By the 5^th month you can hardly pedal. Only your sense of righteousness keeps you going. You both have a medical checkup and both of you learn that you have  suffered permanent identical disabilities.

You both decide to sue. You take the agonizing trip by bike, downtown to your lawyer's office. The  way things are going you both figure that you will receive the same damages award.   


 Right?

No way.  Your friend who was hit by the car dealer will get thousands of dollars from ICBC.  You, however, having been hit by the nice City car driver will get nothing.  


You have been Cloister Flocked.


The result has nothing to do with the fact that the City driver was charming and had a socially responsible job.  Neither did the fact that the car dealer was a complete prick. I added those things to show the importance of careful analysis. That is why the legal system is so expensive and rightly so.

You are Fluster Clucked because  of section 294 of the Vancouver Charter. That section says in part (2) The city is in no case liable for damages unless notice in writing, setting forth the time, place, and manner in which such damage has been sustained, shall be left and filed with the City Clerk within two months from and after the date on which such damage was sustained; (Similar provisions apply right across Canada and the United States.)

The City lawyers raise this defence. Your lawyers tell the City lawyers that you did not decide to sue until you figured that things would not get any worse. They say to your lawyer, "Where did you get your law degree --- Canadian Tire?"


Your lawyer tells you to go to court. You take his advice. You lose. You have to pay your lawyers and the City lawyer. 

It is all part of the Cloister Flock.  You have been Fluster Clucked. By comparison your friend has been lucky.

So if you suffer damages from the City remember that you face a 60 day limitation period. The law discriminates between victims of Cities and Victims of everyone else.  It is possible but not easy to get around it.  If  you are hit by a car dealer, you have plenty of time. Get a lawyer and sue him or her. 


(Incidentally, if you are a real estate agent and the City gives you wrong zoning information the same principles apply. )

Send the City a letter telling them the whole story. Even if you don't think you have been hurt you might still get lucky.  Send the letter.  Lawyers call this showing an abundance of caution. (Latin abundantia caute) If you ultimately decide that you have been made a better person by the accident and have grown from the experience you do not have to sue. 


If you change your mind you will have two years to sue and watch them twitch under cross examination.  After judgement and after paying your lawyer I would urge you to give the money to the Engineering department to install some new safety devices at intersections.  You can even demand that as part of any settlement.

SAVING DUNBAR ROCK

Last summer while excavating for a sewer line, Vancouver City workers came across a big rock.  It was not just your everyday rock, but a very big, fully developed boulder. 

It was temporarily deposited in front of the Dunbar library. 

Dunbar is a neighborhood suffering under a burden of enormously high property values. At a time when houses are being demolished and flipped we found solace in this stolid visitor from underground. It was not going anywhere. People said things like, " Hey, look at that craggy rock!" 

The neighborhood historian went on line and got things moving:

The city crews working on Dunbar have uncovered a very large and very special Dunbar Aratic Rock and you can see it near the Library!  It was a rock that was in a glacier that covered Dunbar about 14 thousand years ago and when the Glacier melted, it parked itself on Dunbar’s doorstep and was covered with melt water rock, gravel and sand until it was discovered by the city crew about 2 weeks ago!  Yes, it is a part of Dunbar’s geological history; it is unique for it looks like it is of the very hard granite type that came from the Coast Mountains Range or even farther afield!  I think it could be ours, if we ask the city for it, but do we have a place to display it!  It is a great attention getter for visiting tourists etc., its home since riding on the Glacier and rolling off to its present Dunbar home, do we want it is the question and again where do we put it if we get it!  Got any ideas?  

    

Thucydides could have said it shorter but not better.


As with the current debate over what to do with our viaducts, a great online discussion took place.  Many were deeply suspicious that the engineers might  grind it up with their infernal machines. The pebbles would then be spread on non native, incorrect species like rabbits and raspberry bushes .

I wanted to give it to the State of Massachusetts to replace Plymouth Rock.  That Old Rock  is worn down from Pilgrims stepping on it and our rock, having serenely reposed next to a sewer easement for eons is none the worse for wear.  It would be Dunbar's gift to Plymouth just as the Statue of Liberty was France's gift to New York.

Another idea was to honour Vancouver Council by placing it on them.

Happily the Rock was moved to our own Memorial Park.  The event has been preserved for the ages on YouTube:

Around the same time, a story appeared in the newspaper.  Canada was ranked the second happiest country in the world, after Denmark.  (Denmark has more bike lanes.) A country that loves ordinary rocks and stones found in sewer easements must also love the universe and for sure is very happy.